Whaling and gnashing of teeth

While 18 new pro-whaling nations have joined the IWC since 2000, 11 countries have signed up on the other side. For what it's worth, the new anti-whaling members are even more likely to be landlocked: they include the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Luxembourg, and, absurdly,
San Marino.

With pro-whaling nations winning their first vote at the International Whaling Commission since 1986, the body seems to be turning into an international-level version of the board game Risk, writes David Fickling.

More than half of the countries that voted in favour of the motion have no significant history of whaling (some are landlocked) and have only joined the commission since 2000. Less attention has been focused on the fact that the anti-whaling nations have been fighting back.

While 18 new pro-whaling nations have joined the IWC since 2000, 11 countries have signed up on the other side. For what it's worth, the new anti-whaling members are even more likely to be landlocked: they include the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Luxembourg, and, absurdly, San Marino.

As with Risk, the main tactic of the pro and anti-whaling blocs is to acquire as many territories as possible before trying to overwhelm the opposition.

The motion itself - which declared that the 20-year ban on commercial whaling should be lifted and blamed whales for eating too much fish - is mainly symbolic. But it holds out the prospect of the pro-whaling bloc winning more concrete victories in future meetings.

Nonetheless, some of the surprisingly pro-whaling countries do have genuine reasons for their positions. Denmark, which voted in favour of yesterday's motion, has active whaling communities in Greenland and the Faroe Islands.

But environmentalists claim that Tokyo has been offering aid incentives to countries prepared to vote with Japan in favour of resuming commercial whaling.

The claim is vociferously denied by Japan. Still, it's hard to see any more plausible explanation for cash-strapped, landlocked countries like Mali and Mongolia to send delegates halfway around the world to vote in favour of restarting a trade in which they have no national interest.

With this year's vote coming so close, the most vociferous rich IWC members - Japan, Norway, Britain, the US, Australia, and New Zealand - will be scouring the world for compliant countries to support their positions.

Less than a third of the world's nations are currently members, so there are no doubt plenty of impoverished governments out there prepared to sell their votes to the highest bidder.

This situation will go on as long as the world continues trying to ban the whaling industry using a body set up to manage the trade. Anti-whaling countries should be pushing for a proper treaty outlawing whaling, like Cites.

The current situation risks tipping the IWC's activities into the realm of outright farce.